I've seen a few of these on DDO and i thought it would be fun
rules: Con asks 10 yes or no questions per round.
if con sees i make a contradiction, than he points it out in his next round.
i can defend and say why it isnt a contradiction
If voters see that I make a contradiction in the round, Give points to con, if not give points to me
If either person breaks rules, other debater automatically wins
Best of luck! have fun!

1: is everyone born with rights?
yes
2:do we all have the right to life?
yes
3:Do you believe in Evolution?
no
4:Do you believe in supernatural events?
yes
5:Is the world a sad place?
yes
6:Have you stopped supporting Neo-Nazism?
I never supported them, but i suppose that means the answer is no
7:Do we all have the right to die?
Yes
8:Do you trust the United States Government?
yes
9:Should the government protect its people and society?
yes
10:Should we all have social freedoms?
yes

1. Are you an atheist?
no
2. Do you believe that aliens probably exist?
no
3. Do you believe that drugs that only harm the user should be legalized?
no
4. Should Neo-Nazists be allowed to publically rally?
no
5. Does the goverment have a responsibility for general human rights outside of America?
yes
6. Do inanimate objects have emotions?
no
7. Should public nudity be allowed?
no
8. Do you support Obama and his views?
no
9. Should the Goverment stop other countries from being able to defend themselves?
no
10. Can nuclear weapons be harmful to the people?
yes

1. In Round Two, my opponent stated that "We all should have social freedom" and that we all have rights, which implies that we all should be able to say whatever we want. However in Round Three, he stated that Neo-Nazists should NOT be allowed to publicly rally, a clear example of the violation of there freedoms.

2. In Round Two, my opponent stated that the Government should protect its people and society. Then in Round Three, he stated that nuclear weapons are harmful to our people and society. This means that the government should take action against the production of nuclear weapons, but in Round Three, he stated that the government should NOT try to stop other countries from developing weapons, such as nukes.

3. In Round Two, my opponent stated that we all have social freedoms and in Round 2 he said that we all have rights, but in round 3 he stated that public nudity should not be allowed.

defending
1:People are allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms until they infringe on other people's rights. Neo-nazism is a clear example of infringement. In the Declaration of independence, it is clearly stated that all men have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is very difficult to pursue happiness when there are people in the streets preaching that non-whites should be killed. this also defies their rights to life, for that matter
2:I never specified what weapons the government should stop the production of, had my opponent specified nukes, he would have gotten a different response. Nevertheless, if the government had tried to stop all production of nukes, they would not get results, people would rebel and make nukes.
3:Again, the infringement of rights would not allow this freedom to be exercised. Most people would prefer not to see nude people in public. It is frankly disgusting.
I will answer questions in comments due to little room.

I ask that the readers look in the comments section for the remainder of our arguments. The rest of my arguments will also be there.

==Contradictions==

1. No one's rights are infringed when Neo-Nazists are allowed to publically rally. You can choose to not listen - and they cannot inflict any bodily harm on you. Quite frankly, they are only exercising their free right to speech. The pursuit of happiness is achieveable as long as you ignore them, and you will continue to live, for their actions are only verbal.

2. That is a careless error on your part. You have done almost nothing to defend your words.

3. Whether or not it is disgusting, it is part of people's "rights". What is disgusting and not disgusting is completely subjective and your own opinion - the nudists themselves obviously find nothing wrong.

8. My opponent stated in the last round that he supported Dick Cheney and his views. He later stated that he supported the auto bailouts. However, Dick Cheney actually voted against the Chrysler bailouts, showing that he did not support the auto-bailouts.http://www.issues2000.org...

9. My opponent also stated that he supported the Christian/Judeo God, but is against mass killings. In the bible, God brought about Ten disasters upon Egypt, to 'convince' the Pharoah to release the Jewish Slaves. The Tenth disaster was the murder and killing of EVERY first born son, a clear example of a 'mass killing'.

10. My opponent also stated that he disagreed with Rick Santorum, a politician known to be against abortion. However, he also stated that he was against abortion. His first statement implied that he supported it - but he later contradicted it by saying he did not.

4. The initial definition of "World" is: "the Earth or globe, considered as a planet.", and Earth just so happens to be the "the planet third in order from the sun, or the the solid matter of this planet; dry land; ground". I don't see how the ground can hold emotions.

5. It doesn't matter what you "meant", since that is not confirm-able. We all can see that you posted that you disagree with Obama's views, which include promoting human rights. However, you support human rights.

6. Supernatural can be seen as "of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult." Aliens and UFO's fall into the category "Unearthly beings" and hence are supernatural.

i didnt see those
srry
4:The EARTH is a large sphere. and does not have emotions. the world, however is defined as(by dictionary.reference.com) as:the earth or a part of it, with its inhabitants, affairs, etc., during a particular period. Meaning, the world, WITH its inhabitants are sad, not the earth
5: I didn't say i supported ALL of Obama's policies and beliefs, but i do agree with some, this one included
6: Scientists don't believe in supernatural events, but a sect of them believe in Ufo's and aliens. Also, If aliens do exist, then to them, are we and our spaceships supernatural? Of course not. Aliens and their spacecraft are not supernatural, if they even exist. Furthermore, I agreed that i believed in supernatural events. that isn't to say that if anything anyone claims is supernatural, i am forced to believe in it
7: same argument as 6

1. Do you believe action should be taken against Global Warming?
No, I don't believe global warming exists
2. Do you believe that Iran is a threat to the US?
yes
3. Do you support Dick Cheney and his views?
yes
4. Do you believe in and support the Christian/Judeo God?
yes
5. Are you against mass killings?
yes
6. Are you against the bailouts to auto-companies?
no
7.. Do you believe that gay marriage should be legalized?
yes
8. Do you support School Prayer?
yes
9. Do you support abortion?
no
10. Do you support Rick Santorum?
no

6. My opponent also stated in round 2 that he believed in supernatural events, but later stated that he trusts the government. The obvious flaw is that the government believes that UFO's do not exist, and UFO's are apart of supernatural events.

7. My opponent stated in round 2 that he believed in supernatural events, but later stated that he does not believe in aliens.

4. In round 2, he stated that "The World Is a Sad Place", but in round 3 he answered that inanimate objects do not have emotions. The world is not living, and in fact, a giant sphere of basically rock and water, but his Round 2 statement implies that the world has emotions.

5. In Round 3, my opponent states that the government has a responsibility for human rights even outside of America. However, he also stated that he does not support Obama, the current president, and his views. Obama has stated that he wishes to improve human rights both globally and in the US.http://www.american.edu...
These to statements on contradictory.